Legal Opinion
Zingale v. Mills Novelty Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided October 14, 1943PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBarlow, J.
Appellant contends that respondent’s failure to give notice under sec. 121.49, Stats., precludes his right to recover. Sec. 121.49 provides :
“In the absence of express or implied agreement of the parties, acceptance of the goods by the buyer shall not discharge the seller from liability in damages or other legal remedy for breach of any promise or warranty in the contract to sell or the sale. But, if, after acceptance of the goods, the buyer fails to give notice to the seller of the breach of any promise or warranty within a reasonable time after the buyer1 knows, or ought to know, of such…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dushane v. BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Selman v. ShirleyOregon Supreme Court · 1938
- Feldmesser v. LembergerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1925
- Robertson v. HaltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Hilgendorf v. SchumanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
3Cited by11 opinions
- Badger Pharmacal, Inc., D/B/A Wisconsin Pharmacal Company, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company and Softsoap Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- Lundin v. ShimanskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
- Rice v. PriceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960
- Hartwig v. BitterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Joseph Lorenz, Inc. v. Thomas (In Re Thomas)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.